Unfit Editors
NY Times Editorial:
What this case is really about is a bogus attempt by the anti death penalty lobby to lash out at Judge Kellor because their attempt to game the system failed. Here is the death penalty game exposed. Wait until the last minute so that there is little time to review the appeal in hopes that the judge will err on the side of postponement.
But, in this case they were dealing with a obviously guilty man and their appeal was not based on innocence, but on an objection to the method of execution. They knew the appeal was of questionable merit and decided to exploit liberal angst about the death penalty. If that was not their plan at the time, it certainly became the plan after the fact.
The US Supreme Court later rejected the entire basis of the appeal they wanted to file. It is an appeal they could have filed despite the closing of the clerks office. The Times needs to put their fact checkers to work on that point, because it destroys the central premise of the case against Kellor as well as the premise of the editorial. This is high dudgeon for a low premise. This is about hatred of the death penalty and not about the process.
Judge Sharon Keller, the Texas appellate court judge who closed the clerk’s office before a death row inmate could file a last-minute appeal, is fighting to keep her job. At a hearing on Wednesday, she said in a crowded courtroom that if she had it to do again, she would do the same thing. That testimony is further proof of why Judge Keller needs to be removed from the bench.All Judge Kellor did was convey the fact that the clerks office would close at its normal time. This did not have the effect of denying any appeal. There was a duty judge available to receive the appeal if the defense counsel had delivered it to the court building.
On Sept. 25, 2007, Michael Richard’s lawyers called the court clerk’s office to say they were running late in delivering the papers for his appeal. The Supreme Court had unexpectedly issued an order in another death penalty case that they believed provided grounds for putting off his execution. When the request to keep the office open reached Judge Keller, she insisted it would close promptly at 5 p.m. The appeal was not filed, and Mr. Richard was executed hours later.
...
What this case is really about is a bogus attempt by the anti death penalty lobby to lash out at Judge Kellor because their attempt to game the system failed. Here is the death penalty game exposed. Wait until the last minute so that there is little time to review the appeal in hopes that the judge will err on the side of postponement.
But, in this case they were dealing with a obviously guilty man and their appeal was not based on innocence, but on an objection to the method of execution. They knew the appeal was of questionable merit and decided to exploit liberal angst about the death penalty. If that was not their plan at the time, it certainly became the plan after the fact.
The US Supreme Court later rejected the entire basis of the appeal they wanted to file. It is an appeal they could have filed despite the closing of the clerks office. The Times needs to put their fact checkers to work on that point, because it destroys the central premise of the case against Kellor as well as the premise of the editorial. This is high dudgeon for a low premise. This is about hatred of the death penalty and not about the process.
Comments
Post a Comment